bow (fwd)

[Koontz John E]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 09:19:19 -0500
From: "Rankin, Robert L" <rankin at ku.edu>
To: 'Michael Mccafferty ' <mmccaffe at indiana.edu>,
     'Robert L. Rankin ' <rankin at lark.cc.ukans.edu>,
     'Koontz John E ' <John.Koontz at Colorado.EDU>
Cc: "'pankihtamwa at earthlink.net '" <pankihtamwa at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: bow


>There are two terms for 'bow' in the Algonquian languages. One, which
means 'wood string' --from /PA *me?tekwa:pyi/-- is found in the Great
Lakes Algonquian languages and in Cheyenne and Arapaho. (Interestingly,
it's also the basis for the term 'mulberry tree' in Miami-Illinois and
Shawnee.)

>The other term, PA */ahta:pya/ (this is Ives' reconstruction. I think
others have reconstructed this with a glottal stop rather than /h/). I'm
not sure what the /aht-/ means. Dave?) This term is found in
Miami-Illinois, Ojibwe AND the Eastern Algonquian languages.

But M-I also has mitaekopa 'bow' in the literature; is that a replacement
term, second name or what?


>What I find strange about this is that it seems to imply that the bow
was something known to speakers of Proto-Algonquian.

I guess I wouldn't say so since, (a) there is no single, unitary term
reconstructible to PA and (b) at least one of the terms you do get, "wood
string", is a compound. Both 'wood' and 'string' are presumably
reconstructible, but that doesn't mean the compound was. It could have
arisen independently many times, since it is descriptive in nature. This is
essentially the argument given by Hockett and others for "fire-water"; both
terms are primitives but 'whiskey' isn't.

>I asked Munson what he knew about the bow and he sent this:
"I don't know if anyone has tried to trace the spread of the bow into
eastern N. Am.  It was present in SW US by first centuries (or
earlier??), and a good guess, I'd think, is that it came across southern
Plains, and if that is correct, then should be earlier in Caddo area
than in Great Lakes and New England."

>Another ingredient in this mix is the fact that terms for 'bow' in
Siouan come from Algonquian, which seems to turn what Munson is saying on
its head, and, at least to my peapicking mental powers, seems to imply that
the spread of the bow was north to south--Algonquians generally north of
Siouans. I wonder if the Eskimos had bows prehistorically. So, what's my
question? Or is this just a rant?

Dunno about the Eskimos. I'd say the borrowing by Siouan from Algonquian is
well-established, originally by John, with only some additional elaboration
from me. And it was apparently borrowed numerous times from several
different Algonquian languages in different places. I look upon it as
basically East to West, but N to S makes just as much sense as far as it
goes. A roughly spiral movement is possible also. I don't know that anyone
has looked at the Caddoan 'bow' terms. Other intermediate families
(Uto-Aztecan, etc.) should also be looked at. I guess that's the next step.

Bob